1968 d and 1966 penny error 1 1

[Hinkle]

I have two more puzzling ones for us. Lol. I found the 68 about a month ago but didn't think much of it. But found the 66 today  and it looks the same . Could this be a die chip. This is kinda strange. It's the next column over to the right of Lincoln at the top.

[Hinkle]

[Hinkle]

You can see something going on, to the third column over on left side of Lincoln. At the bottom corner. 

[kbbpll]

Strong die clash from Abe's bust, particularly on the 68. That's what I think anyway, but I don't have the software to make an overlay. Inside the columns just right of center appears to be the nape of the neck under the chin from the obverse. Nice pictures.

PS - scroll down for an overlay here and some typical examples. http://www.maddieclashes.com/typical-die-clash-u-s-small-cent/

Edited December 3, 2019 by kbbpll

[Hinkle]

11 hours ago, kbbpll said:

Strong die clash from Abe's bust, particularly on the 68. That's what I think anyway, but I don't have the software to make an overlay. Inside the columns just right of center appears to be the nape of the neck under the chin from the obverse. Nice pictures.

PS - scroll down for an overlay here and some typical examples. http://www.maddieclashes.com/typical-die-clash-u-s-small-cent/

So are these just errors or are they variatietys. I'm not seeing anything by searching these on line. But I put them in 2x2 flips for safe keeping. 

[kbbpll]

Good question, I don't know whether it's "technically" an error or a variety. It's a mint error (clanging the dies together without a planchet) that can produce many coins - for as long as they continue to use the "damaged" die. So in that sense of repeatability, to me it's also a variety. I'm not a Morgan collector but I believe many of the VAM listings are distinguished by die clashes (I could be wrong; go look some up I guess). And as you can see on the Mad Die Clashes site, they have designated many of them with "variety" numbers. Your 1966 is not quite the same as this 1966 - http://www.maddieclashes.com/tdc-1c-1966-01/. I'd keep yours too, particularly the 1968-S. Other collectors don't like them - if somebody wants a pristine MS67 or whatever, they might not want the distracting marks of the clashes. Myself, I consider it a bonus when I find them. It adds interest.

[Hinkle]

14 minutes ago, kbbpll said:

Good question, I don't know whether it's "technically" an error or a variety. It's a mint error (clanging the dies together without a planchet) that can produce many coins - for as long as they continue to use the "damaged" die. So in that sense of repeatability, to me it's also a variety. I'm not a Morgan collector but I believe many of the VAM listings are distinguished by die clashes (I could be wrong; go look some up I guess). And as you can see on the Mad Die Clashes site, they have designated many of them with "variety" numbers. Your 1966 is not quite the same as this 1966 - http://www.maddieclashes.com/tdc-1c-1966-01/. I'd keep yours too, particularly the 1968-S. Other collectors don't like them - if somebody wants a pristine MS67 or whatever, they might not want the distracting marks of the clashes. Myself, I consider it a bonus when I find them. It adds interest.

Thank you kbbpll, difently keepers, really interesting talk pieces.